<p>Well, especially if you work in the admissions business, I pray that you recognize that you are wrong on this issue, even if you don’t want to address it. The narrow and outdated confines of conventional academic measurements of success (mostly test scores) does not reflect the intelligence or capacities of real human beings.</p>
<p>It took me many years to break free from the draconian system (thank you, Cornell) and realize that I’m quite brilliant, but simply not in the way that can be measured by memorization and testing.</p>
<p>Please do not subject students to the same limited perspectives of measurment that I had to endure. It’s time to evolve our thinking.</p>
<p>7sisters - you said you are in the admission business, I assume it is private college counseling. You also said you are glad Harvard ended its ED program. I thought it was EA, and they just announced in Feb that they are restoring EA this fall.</p>
<p>“Do you see me starting any threads nowadays?” etc</p>
<p>You are now responding to comments I made to you over three months ago.</p>
<p>I reprinted that old post in its entirety; it was the only time I referred to you and ■■■■■■ in the same post . There was another time I made an oblique reference, but it was understood only by me and a few others. Someone suggested that three people posting at the time, including you explicitly, were ■■■■■■, and I responded “don’t feel bad, 'cause two out of three ain’t bad”. Meaning, IMO they got two of their three assertions correct.You were the third. </p>
<p>If I commented that there were a lot of ■■■■■■ running around, that was certainly correct at that time. Back then I actually caught someone posting repeated disparaging comments under two aliases. And if I pointed out everyone should use “Report Problem Posts” when they see such conduct if they want the offending ■■■■■ behavior to stop, that seems correct to me too, as a general procedure to follow in such circumstances. That’s what I would do. However I never reported any of your posts. If they had previously been referring to posts you made, I may not have read close enough to realize that’s whose posts they were talking about. But I never called you a ■■■■■.</p>
<p>Yikes. I leave these forums alone for a while (e.g. over a year) and we devolve into posts with 25 pages with no clear end?!</p>
<p>Here’s a thought: Instead of engaging in all of our silly little status competitions, let’s try to go out and create new knowledge to make the world a better place. </p>
<p>(With a tip of the hat to Colm, Applejack, Monydad, and Norcalguy.)</p>
<p>I, for one, have missed you on these boards Cayuga, and I’m sure that all the other well meaning Cornell advocates who frequent this sub-forum would agree. We’re simply engaged in a good old anti-misinformation slog. By the way, I was away for many months as well, until I took a CC peek and got swept up for a round. Of course, you are right – “making the world a better place through new knowledge” is laudable. Isn’t that part of what a venerable university like your alma mater works to inculcate? In any event, I hope that you have been out doing some of what you preached above Cayuga!</p>
<p>I will be joining you in exile come the end of May. Probably for good this time. Unless the little one decides to transfer, like D2 did last time I was gone.</p>
<p>Interesting to hear from you, and Cayugared, all at the same time. Is there an ILR reunion event scheduled now or something? </p>
<p>I came back to CC, after a year’s departure that I thought would be longer, when D2 decided to transfer. The first post I made when I returned was titled "gomestar around? " (he wasn’t).</p>
<p>This subforum needs some young blood to pick up the torch from these guys, as they quite appropriately move on. it’s suboptimal for us parents and old alums to hold up the lion’s share, we are old, dated, and getting info second hand or aged.</p>
<p>Indeed they were. They were posting quite vicious comments about me being a ■■■■■ from another school in a bunch of different threads (just cause I was playing the devil’s advocate). However, it seems you weren’t aware at all; misunderstanding there on my part. I’m just surprised no one accused me of being engineerbill, althought most of the past accusers haven’t been posting around here these days.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose you wouldn’t like it if I picked up that torch ;)</p>
<p>P.S. Also, you explained that Penn’s city location and the rise of Wall Street was mainly responsible for its rise in prestige/rankings/etc…but you never explained how Wash U did that. If it wasn’t mass marketing, playing the rankings game…what was it?</p>
<p>not that I know of. To be perfectly honest, my work computer had to be wiped out and reloaded so I lost my favorites and internet history and pretty much “forgot” to check back in.</p>
<p>“If it wasn’t mass marketing, playing the rankings game…what was it?”</p>
<p>Who said it wasn’t, in part?? Certainly not me. I refer you back to the first three paragraphs of #339. Tactical admissions policies and marketing initiatives were clearly part of the picture there. </p>
<p>I am not an expert on Wash U, however IIRC, they used the humongously substantial big bucks they were fortunate enough to be the recipient of in the 1980s to get more high-powered researchers, and to “buy” top students using big merit scholarships. More recently, since it worked, I think they feel they no longer need to fork out the merit scholarships to the same extent, though they are still part of the picture I believe.</p>
<p>The discrepancy among Cornell’s various colleges was likely wider when I was attending than it is today. Yet the comparable programs at Cornell (CAS and engineering) were materially more selective and highly regarded than those at Washington University at that time. Washington University does not have colleges of Agriculture, Human ecology, Industrial and labor relations to compare with those at Cornell. The “drag” of the contract colleges you allege was evidently not a problem for CAS and engineering then, though the stats differences between the endowed and contract colleges did not change adversely from that time to now; if anything the reverse is true.</p>
<p>Washington University’s relative rise is the most dramatic of any university in the entire country from the period when I attended college to now. (NYU is second).Wash U has raised its relative place vs. virtually every university in the country, not just vs. Cornell. Washington University’s rise has nothing to do with Cornell’s contract colleges. The other universities it has improved its relative position against, which is essentially all of them, don’t even have contract colleges. Cornell’s contract colleges are more relatively academically competitive now than they were back then, when Wash U arts & sciences was admitting 81% of applicants, vs 36% at Cornell CAS. Alleged deficiencies of Cornell’s contract colleges played no role here. The stats discrepancies among Cornell’s colleges were if anything more pronounced when Wash U arts & sciences was nowhere remotely near Cornell CAS than they are now.</p>
<p>Tactical admissions policies can be very helpful, but as they say money makes the world go round. You want to help Cornell’s administrators? Donate a billion dollars to them. That will help.</p>
<p>Indeed, I’ve actually taken up some part-time work as an adjunct for a local college, so that has taken up a lot of my time. I’ve completely fallen away from CC, but those who want to follow my writings about Cornell know where to look ;)</p>
<p>For all that have been caught up in this whirlwind of comments, please refer to the first post on this thread! Let’s be proud and respect what that person has said. Cornell is a wonderful school, and there are many more schools that seem better or worse, depending on which caliber. </p>
<p>SUPER excited for August 2011! Cornell, here I come! :)</p>